imagine the brain as a computer, with several automated processes hardwired in.

you have free will to do as you please, however some of those processes running in the background will compel you not to choose certain options.

your instincts for survival will kick in if you consider doing something potentially dangerous.

your pack mentality, will kick in if you consider doing something anti social that might get you ostracised from the group.

you will eat when you are hungry, drink when you are thirsty, etc etc

but in spite of these compulsions much is still down to choice.

of course i have no evidence for this, but there is no evidence to the contrary either.

I could make the claim that far from having had free will, no one has had any choice in anything yet as the universe has yet to come into exisitance, and that as a believer in the religious philosophy of next thursdayism, the belief that the universe will be created next thursday fully intact as it is with all of us having imprinted beliefs that we have actually been alive before that point.

thus the truth is that you are not actually sat in front of a computer reading my post, but are in actual fact lying on a great celestial workbench being given the experience of reading my post and other such experiences in preperation for the creation of the universe which is coming in two days.

trying to argue against a position which attacks the fundamental senses with which you could refute it, is futile at best.

That's why I think free will would require absolute knowledge, and what I mean when I talk about the unknown. To exercise free will you would need to know how you have been influenced. Look at advertising. Most people like to think it doesn't affect them, but the reality is that it does. McDonalds spends billions on advertising, and if you decide you want McDonalds is it really your free will being exercised (this is what I absolutely want) or is it the will of McDonalds (I want this person to eat at our restaurants). If you have been influenced by advertising then it cannot be your free choice. To have free will you would have to not only know this, but be above it and understand it so you can make your OWN choice, free from influence.

That's awesome that you mention the Mcdonalds. I've seen it in kids who have never even had Mcdonalds before and who scream and shout at their parents that they want the Mcdonalds because they like it. As you know, I like a McDs when I could just as easily go and get a Greggs meal or something much better for me from a better place. I feel so easily influenced now lol

No longer playing World of Warcraft. Goodbye fond memories
FUCK THE ALLIANCE

this is the bit that gets me as in my previous post. I don't get how opinions based upon others can be free will?

Really?

Free will is the ability to choose between different options. It doesn't matter whether you are influenced by external events, just that you have free will to choose any option. If you didn't have free will then past events would have no bearing on your choice because you weren't free to choose in the first place.

Example: I have a choice with two options (A and B). Say someone influenced me to choose A and I do end up going with A. That doesn't mean I don't have free will, I may still have been able to choose B.

Still, I don't see why a complex enough system couldn't develop an internal set of instructions (morals, logic etc...) which would be capable of allowing free will.

if they are part of a controlled system they can be predicatable. You can factor in other things like randomness and noise, Nassim Taleb puts a good case for this in things like market logic in his Book Fooled by Randomness

In that case, would we even be classed as a spectator? Without free will then surely even consciousness has to be questioned because even our thoughts are pre-determined.

In my dreams i feel like i have consciousness, but then i wake up and realise it just byproduct of unconscious brain (I think). I certainly do not believe the events experienced did happen that previous 8 hours. But surely I experienced the feeling of consciouness from a fully immersed spectator man Matrix style?

I don't see why there has to be a jump to an outside force until you can adequately show that the brain is incapable of producing the ability to have free will. It's not like intelligence is a binary choice so I see no reason why free will can't be a product of higher levels of intelligence.

[/QUOTE]

I wasn't saying there is one, but if you assume the brain is a machine, then an external force is a feasable concept

free will all the way. imagine the brain as a computer, with several automated processes hardwired in. you have free will to do as you please, however some of those processes running in the background will compel you not to choose certain options. your instincts for survival will kick in if you consider doing something potentially dangerous. your pack mentality, will kick in if you consider doing something anti social that might get you ostracised from the group. you will eat when you are hungry, drink when you are thirsty, etc etc but in spite of these compulsions much is still down to choice. of course i have no evidence for this, but there is no evidence to the contrary either.

Thats soft determinism dude, the fact that we have choice over some behaviours but not over others means that it is not free will. If you put it that way you dont come across as believing in free will as you speak of instinctual urges to react well the free will debate believe we have a choice whether to react and state we can control these urges.

Free will is the ability to choose between different options. It doesn't matter whether you are influenced by external events, just that you have free will to choose any option. If you didn't have free will then past events would have no bearing on your choice because you weren't free to choose in the first place.

Example: I have a choice with two options (A and B). Say someone influenced me to choose A and I do end up going with A. That doesn't mean I don't have free will, I may still have been able to choose B.

I don't see how this is confusing so it's hard to explain it.

Putting it that way then yes. If someone has a gun to your head and gives you the option beween slavery or death you can choose one. I don't think that has anything to do with free will though.

The confusion is over your use of free will. People here are arguing based on free will having a much larger scope than you are giving it.